>Thinking of 'yati', I came up with this poem.
>> kam|| yatiyunu, satiyunu okaTE
> gati goorcunu; padyamunaku, ghanamuga patikin
> sati yatula maitri kudaraka
> mati bOvu, tarugu parapati; maganiki, kavitan
^^^^^^^^^^
>does this word also mean "kavitaku"? or, should it be "kavitakun"?
>actually, I am making this enquiry only because it "prepares" the
>reader for the following.
(as per the context, kavitan =kavita lO)
This attempt was well undesrstood and taken in the right spirit only.
> in the recently concluded/adjourned debate on _chandassu_, jampala gaaru
>said > that the usage of archaic forms in chandO poetry is a turn-off. As
>far as I could > see, his statement didn't attract much attention and I
>have been left thinking why > such archaic forms continue to be used in
>chandO poetry. To my knowledge, > _chandassu_ has no requirements
>as to the form of the language per se > (contemporary vs
>archaic, vaaDuka vs graanthika, acca telugu vs sanskritized >
>telugu, telangaaNaa telugu vs Andhraa telugu... i am sure you got the
>point :-).
Quite honestly, I too feel the same.
> Why then the persistent use of archaic forms such as words ending in 'an'
>etc? > After all, in most other forms of communication we don't employ
>such words! Is > it because of tradition? The chandO poetry we study in
>our school texts uses > such language and so, when we try to write
>chandO poetry, we do the same? I > am also guessing that some archaic
>forms offer some convenience factor: for > eg. the "an"-ending is
>convenient to create a guruvu when needed. (?) Are there > any other and
>stronger reasons?
I must say, the point of 'archaic usages' is well taken but unfortunately,
the example chosen doesn't suit it (not because it started with my poem as
the example.) I can't decide whether the words ending with '..n' can be
called archaic or not, but I can definitely say they are not confined to
chandO poetry only. Here is something about it.
'pollu' means a 'hallu without an accu' and '...n' is called 'na' kaara
pollu (dRtamu). Words ending with '...n' quite often form 'saraLaa dESa
sandhi' with a following 'parusha' (i.e., ka, ca, Ta, ta, pa) and bring in
saraLaas (ga, ja, Da, da, ba) respectively instead.
Here, is one highly colloquial form of example for this.
'davaakhaanaa keTla bOvalE'?
'ee teeruna jakkanga bOte vastadi'
In the first line it is y(k)eTla'n' + pOvalE = yeTla( bOvale.
Prior to the saraLamu, there appears an 'arasunna', sometimes a full
'sunna' also.
In the second line, teeruna'n'+ cakkanga = teeruna( jakkanga
again ja(ca)kkanga'n'+ pOte = cakkanga( bOte
So, as the 'saraLaas' cover the '....n' ending words, which we never see
visibly in the vaaDuka bhaasha, but they do exist and are implied. In
addition, 'nugaagama sandhi' can also mask some of these words. (Afterall,
people are grammatical without their own knowledge. Probably, that is what
is meant by 'maatR bhaasha'.)
Extending on'pollu of other hallulu', we often come across many of them
quite visibly also.
For eg., 'prabhaakar', 'kumaar', naveen' mahesh' suresh' viSaal'. All these
are 'pollu' ending words often very familiar. Indeed, one can claim these
are not 'telugu' words, as telugu words should end with an 'accu'. (One
gentleman on this net comes to my mind as a pleasant surprise for this
reason, as he writes his name as if justifying this rule. He writes his
name as 'pamiDighantam sudhaakaru', the very appropriate way to write.)
Coming to the usages of 'pollulu': This is not confined to 'chandO poetry'
only. The one that strikes the mind immediately is
'sutul, satul, hitul
pOtE pOnee,
kashTaal, nashTall, kOpaal, Saapaal, paapaal vastE raanee'.
In my view, the 'la kaara pollu' is used to keep the extending
pronounciation (guruvu) to match the momentum very aptly and if it were
'laghuvu' (i.e., kashTaalu, nashTaalu...), it would lower the tempo for
sure. (So, I don't think, it is just accidental but deliberate. Above all,
people consider this as modern poetry or non chandO poetry.)
> Also, unrecognized in the chando vs. non-chando debate is the need for an
>> overhaul/modernization of the language. for example,
>legitimizing the use of > telugu prefixes and suffixes with
>foreign words, creation of rules for sandhi's > and samaasaa's involving
>telugu and foreign words (including sanskrit, english > etc.) are some
>of the changes that telugu could use at this point. Without such a >
>modernization, the language would grow in an ad hoc fashion and become
>> less and less standardized.
Foreign words did figure in well before we were all born, and that too in
chnadO poetry itself.
One poem Dr. C.NarayaNa Reddy, once quoted as Sreenathaa's, starts like this.
'khusi meeran.....'
khusi = persian 'khushee'.
We may not know well, how many english words already figured in telugu
chandO poetry. One comes to the mind immediately is 'neeTu'.
> Oh! by the way, the reason I say this modernization should be discussed
>in the > chandO debate is this: subscribers to chandO-free poetry are
>apparently > unanimous in the opinion that "anything goes" in
>poetry. On the other hand, a > typical chandO-poet has grammarians
>and laakshaNikaas and the like watching > closely over his shoulder
>and as a result the chandO poet may be operating > with less
>flexibility regarding his choice and usage of language than his
>> free-verse counterpart.
Absolutely true. But is 'flexibility' bringing all the time the intended
purpose?
On this very net a few weeks ago, Sri ari seetaa ramaiah gaaru posted a
comment about a 'vacana kavita'- 'ainaa simhaannE'. Nobody can find a hard
word to follow in that. However, the comment was' I am confused, I didn't
get what she was trying to say'. The only difference between him and me was
he posted his opinion, I didn't.
So, may I feel like concluding that chandO poets may suffer from
'restrictions' and 'vacana kavees' may misuse the freedom/flexibility.
(This very thought sometimes makes me to fantasize a 'speed breaker' role
for chandassu.)
Also, there can be many examples to prove that very fluid and lucid telugu
was fit into chandO poetry and it is not right as people always feel that
it is full of sanskrit. On the other hand, without knowing how 'acca
telugu' would be, many people keep complaining that telugu literature is
full of sanskrit words. (Sri sadaananda and Sri jampaala posted something
to this effect recently.)
So, on the whole, at any time it is tough to prepare ground based on a few
examples in the field of literature either to prove or disprove a point. I
am sure a more knowledgeable person may support me or contradict me with
his own examples.
While accepting your views on the archaic nature (chaandasamu) in almost
everywhere and everybody, I personally feel one should find the solution
within oneself rather than from outside for this. I elaborate on this in my
next post.
With regards,
Prabhakar Vissavajjhala